$30 million debacle spurs Marin's cautious hunt for new computer system

Civic Center officials wary of past blunders are proceeding cautiously amid a detailed study of fiscal software needs, but expect to select a new program by next spring.

With the county's $30 million computer debacle providing painful memories, county supervisors have spent $530,000 on consultants, and authorized another $350,000 in payments, to analyze business processes and system requirements, as well as guide selection of a new system.

"We want to get this right," County Administrator Matthew Hymel noted, citing the "problems of the past" at an informal workshop session of the Board of Supervisors and top administration, finance, personnel and high-tech officials this week.

He added that advice from the grand jury that a group of citizen experts be called in has merit and will be embraced. The foreman of last year's hard-driving jury, Rich Treadgold, will be among a handful of those serving on the committee.

A county staff "administrative technologies of Marin" team called ATOM, drawing key employees from across county departments, has been reviewing issues, analyzing strategy, advising and otherwise preparing for selection of the new system for two years. Working with Plante & Moran, staffers have identified more than 1,020 issues, including 304 dealing with processes and policies, and 513 with technology

"There is no one solution that will do it all for us," said Tim Flanagan, enterprise systems manager for the county's Department of Information Services and Technology. "We're seeking the most possible for the best possible value."

Consultant Adam Rujan, whose firm, Plante & Moran, has $750,000 in contracts to advise officials on what to do, said the county will be ready to issue a request for proposals in two months. He said his firm will conduct an "apples to apples" analysis of how the software vendors stack up on key processes. The Michigan-based consulting firm, founded in 1924, has a staff of 2,000 and is among the largest certified public accounting and management consulting operations in the nation.

Rujan estimated eventual costs at $8 million to $11 million for software and vendor work, as well as another $5 million in "soft costs," which he described as "people like me" and "backfill."

The estimates, he said, are conservative.

"We're a little on the high side" although "you certainly could spend more," he added. The county has set aside about $6.8 million for system replacement, and has other reserve funds it could dip into, Hymel said.

Rujan estimated annual operating costs at about $1.25 million, or half of what the county's troubled SAP system costs to maintain.

"We can't be as reliant on consultants as we have before ... but we're going to need some level of consultants," Hymel advised. The county doesn't have the staff capacity to wean itself completely but "we don't use consultants lightly," Hymel asserted. "We will need some level of consultant help."

Supervisor Steve Kinsey asked the staff to provide an analysis of what other counties and local governments are doing, and Supervisor Susan Adams asked for details on "the positives as well as the challenges so we can pre-anticipate them."

Hymel said that change will be a hard sell in some arenas but "we'll have to deal with that" as employees get used to a new program.

The selection of a new software system follows a storied debacle in which county supervisors spent $30 million on a software system that never worked right — and cost too much to maintain. The county board sued, accusing vendors of bribery, fraud and racketeering, among other ills, and spent $5 million on the litigation before settling the case for just $3.9 million after a series of court setbacks.

The county board approved a legal capitulation that included a gag order in which all parties, including the supervisors, were barred from talking about the matter.